Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
Unifying Ethereum: ERC-7683
Recorded: Nov. 8, 2024 Duration: 1:19:21Space Recording
Full Transcription
Good, intense. Good morning.
What's going on, guys?
How you doing, man?
Hey, heart.
Good, good.
How you doing?
Doing well, man. This will be fun.
Hello, hello.
Yeah, I'm excited. Yo, yo, what's up, Joshua?
Namas, how about y'all?
Getting ready for DevCon.
Hello, everyone.
What's up, Roger?
DevCon's going to be good vibes, guys.
This is like, to have kind of like all the negative ETH sentiment
and then a big positive event, I feel like it's going to be wild.
So it should be fun.
Yeah, I feel like we haven't really had a conference with this good of timing
since like 2021 ETH Lisbon, which was certainly a good time.
Yeah, that's a good example.
That was a good time.
I agree.
Dude, that was the top.
I think we've got a full enough crew here to get started.
More people.
I think we've got some more speakers on the lineup that are going to filter in.
But why don't we go ahead and kick it off?
You know, I think there's quite a bit to talk about here.
And, you know, maybe just while more people fill in,
we'll kind of sing Kumbaya in the beginning, do some intros.
And then, you know, we'll kind of get into like what this means
on a more technical level and kind of into the nuts and bolts of it.
But yeah, to start, you know, let's just kind of go around the horn.
Hart, I invite you to start.
And just, you know, I'm sure everyone kind of here is at least seen you on Twitter,
if not heard, you know, you on a podcast or met you before.
But why don't you kind of do a brief introduction and then, you know,
briefly introduce 7683 while you're at it.
And we can kind of go around the horn about both introductions and 7683 to start.
And then we'll get deeper into it.
Yeah, sure.
Yeah, Robbie, thanks for hosting.
Thanks for having me.
So I'm the co-founder of Across.
We are known as a bridging protocol.
But I think the architecture under the hood is intent-based.
And I think we can maybe talk on this pod about how with Intents,
the kind of concept of bridging will actually go away.
But anyways, interoperability is what we're focused on.
Across is focused on fast interoperability.
And one of our theses is that in order to make Ethereum feel like one network again,
which is hopefully a theme that we'll talk about today,
if we want to make Ethereum with all of its role of feel like one network again,
Interop has to be fast, like two seconds fast.
And I think the intent architecture is the only architecture that can deliver on that today.
In that vein, a standard that we helped develop with Uniswap,
and it's now being supported by a whole bunch of teams,
is this standard called ERC 7683, which is a standard for cross-chain intents.
And this is simply the mental model I have is it's like an order ticket that says,
I have asset X on chain A, I want asset Y on chain B.
And the standard simply defines the shape of that order ticket.
And the thought process here is that by making this a standard,
it's not about any one protocol.
It's just an architecture that lots of protocols can build on
to really push forward this concept of unifying Ethereum.
Anyways, that's probably too long.
So we'll stop there and pass it on to the next person.
I see Zane in here from the optimism side.
If you'd like to introduce yourself and kind of add into anything that Hart said,
and then we can go over to Josh as well.
Hey, howdy, everyone.
Excited to see some of y'all at DevCon.
Big fan of what a cross and the broader intents ecosystem is doing.
I think what Hart got to is, look, we are scaling Ethereum.
There's a variety of different blockchains, but the experience today is not that great.
So we need to solve for this.
And I think intents are one of those great solutions that are helping users use a variety
of different applications across Ethereum, whether that's on Unichain or OP Mainnet or Polygon.
And I think what we're going to see is, you know, it's not so much going to third-party bridge
apps like across, but more starting to see like what Uniswap is doing, where they're embedding
these intra-op protocols, where they're intents directly into their app so that users have
a better experience.
Awesome.
Raza, do you want to go next?
Yeah.
Raza, you're on mute.
Not sure if you're having mic issues, but why don't we kick it over to Joshua next up?
Yeah, I guess.
Happy to.
I'm with Aori, Joshua.
I guess the thing we're mostly focused on, especially with a cross that we're very, very
excited about is solving cross-chain intents.
So we're a same-chain intents protocol, and we represent across orders to same-chain solvers.
So we were able to bridge, you know, the kind of very liquid market of same-chain solvers
who are, you know, routing trades through a particular network, through tons of DEX pools,
through central exchange liquidity that they're holding in their wallets, and, you know, across
itself and other 7683-compliant intents protocols.
So we're super excited about that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And, yeah, very, very interested in kind of what the implications are surrounding an intents-based
feature.
I think I agree with Hart on intents being the only way that you can remove the feeling of
having to do things like moving assets between chains.
You can kind of really only do that through things like intents.
So, yeah.
Yep.
Sounds great.
We'll get into a little bit more nuance there into intents and what it means for the liquidity
in the ecosystem.
Raza, do you want to pick up now?
Can you hear us?
Yeah.
Sorry, not sure what went wrong.
Hi, I'm Raza, everyone.
Head of Growth here at Scroll.
Excited to talk about specifically intents.
I think I heard about intents like it's been a minute, like a while ago.
So I'm excited to see, like, what's next?
I think one of the most common issues I hear about when onboarding new users that bridging
is scary.
So excited to talk about intents.
Nice.
And Adam, please round us out.
Hey, y'all.
Great to be chatting with you guys.
I'm Adam.
I'm an engineering lead at Alchemy focused on smart contracts and account abstraction.
So we've been powering a lot of ERC 4337 activity since its launch with support on, like, the
infraside, sponsoring paymaster account contracts, and, you know, lots of customization, things
like pass keys, session keys with permissions, and multi-sig accounts.
Recently, we launched Alchemy rollups.
So we're powering WorldChain, Avogatje, and many more rollups to come.
Overall, we're just excited about helping developers bring the world on chain and making that
experience seamless for their users.
So with that theme, very excited to discuss cross-chain intents with you all and how ERC
7683 supports them.
Awesome.
And do we have anyone from across in the Polygon accounts here?
Or are you guys just up to support?
Can I go in once, go in twice?
I think the cross account's just up to support.
Cool.
Cool.
Well, yeah, that sounds good.
A lot of good points here.
And, like, I think one place to start is, you know, kind of the ecosystem-wide support
for this standard that has been kind of converging around this standard.
This is something that you can see just from the diversity of the projects that are on this
space and the speakers and the projects that have shown their support, showing that they're
intense and they support the 7683 standard.
And so to kind of kick this off, you know, we've seen plenty of standards come out, both
ERCs, EIPs, and they're all very contentious.
This one has gotten ecosystem-wide support.
You know, I'm sure it wasn't easy, but, you know, relatively quickly and through a vast
number of projects in the Ethereum space.
And so this is kind of an open question.
This is usually how we run our spaces is, you know, not questions pointed to a particular
person, but feel free to jump in.
But I kind of want to start and talk a little bit about how and why this standard has gotten
so much support from such a diverse set of projects.
What is special about this standard in that sense?
You want to direct that at anybody in particular, Robby?
Hart, why don't you start?
And then if anyone wants to chime in, please.
Yeah.
I'd love to follow up after you, Hart.
Yeah, go ahead.
Yeah.
Sorry, I didn't see who spoke after me.
But like, what I would just say is like, look, too much of Ethereum is PVP or crypto is PVP
right now.
Um, and I think one of the things, one of the bits of feedback I've gotten about why
this standard is seemingly and again, still early stage, we got a lot more wood to chop
here.
But like, it really wasn't developed by one protocol.
It's not like one protocol's thing.
So, you know, this standard, we did create, across created this with Uniswap, but it wasn't
across this thing.
It wasn't Uniswap's thing.
And actually, like, across and Uniswap kind of had to negotiate in the early stages to make
something that worked for both of us, which my sense is that actually created a whole
vibe that this is like not owned by one project.
And that, I think, made a bit of a difference in other teams wanting to support this, even
just from a Vibes perspective.
And then, of course, I actually want to say that the concept here, it's pretty simple.
It's like, you go back to ERC20s, like the ERC20s token standard isn't exactly controversial
because it's just like, here's the shape.
I'm speaking with my hands here, if you guys could see me.
But ERC20 is like, here's the shape of what a token could look like.
Here's what the interface looks like.
My mental model for the ERC7683 is it's just supposed to say, like, here's the shape of
what a cross-chain order ticket could look like.
And an order ticket is an intent here.
And we keep it, like, pretty high level that way.
And I feel like that got some support.
But I'd really love to hear other people on here and their thoughts.
Yeah, I'd love to jump in and, like, end up in absolutely no way.
This is more like a comment rather than any kind of, like, a criticism or support or anything
like that.
But, like, the really interesting thing about 7683, like Hart alluded to, is the fact that,
like, the day one publishers were two powerhouse protocols, like, across in Uniswap.
Like, generally speaking, there's that great XKCD comic that's like, you know, there are
14 universal, or there are 14 standards for something.
And then, hey, why don't we make a universal standard that unifies them all?
And then the last panel is, there are now 15 standards for this thing.
And I think the only way you beat that, like, you know, trope of, like, trying to unify
a bunch of standards, and, you know, all you do is make the problem worse, is by coming
into it with just an absolute kind of powerhouse combo or kind of set of people in a particular
domain that are going to basically force that becomes the domain.
I think, frankly, like, one kind of small thing with relation to, like, 7683 is, like,
I absolutely, and feel free to comment on this too hard if you'd like as well.
I do not think that, like, 7683 will be the last.
I think it's the best first.
And it's the best kind of start of unifying the cross-chain intent standard.
But I fundamentally expect as the intense ecosystem evolves for there to be, you know,
much more broad and, you know, inclusive of other data types, other order types.
We might find out that there are particular features that users want in cross-chain intents
that just, you know, 7683 never could have expected, things like that, to kind of be
included in future EIPs.
But that's kind of the beauty of an EIP is it's not a governance proposal in a lot of
cases.
It's basically just a, you know, kind of a, here's what we're all thinking.
So, sorry for the ramble, but, yeah, my kind of two.
No, it wasn't a ramble.
I'll just jump in and say, and by the way, my phone isn't saying who's speaking.
Was that you, Josh?
Yeah, that was Josh.
Okay.
Yeah.
My fucking Twitter spaces, excuse my language.
They just like, Elon needs to fix this part of the app.
But yeah, so just to support you, I agree that this isn't be all and end all.
This is just a starting point.
And what I would also say is we tried, in what a cross and Uniswap pushed for, they
wanted a starting point that could actually be used today.
It wasn't like too far in the future.
It was just trying to be kind of opinionated as like, okay, let's just focus on basically
moving assets between chains with this ability to maybe do some extra stuff.
And that was purposeful because we wanted something that wasn't like waiting on some
future technologies to be usable.
Anyways, that's the sidebar.
Nice.
Raz, you got your hand up.
Feel free to jump in.
Yeah, I guess like two points.
One, I think Joshua Hart mentioned this 100%.
I think that when it comes to unified standards and that are not necessarily labeled to one
brand, I think that, you know, I'm personally a huge fan of this because, you know, that
also speaks to a mission like as in like, we're here to solve a problem, not necessarily
like from a specific ecosystem, but across like Ethereum.
And then the second thing is like, I love the fact that what Joshua said is that this
is a start.
I think that, you know, I spent 10 years outside of crypto.
And one of the things that often is looked at as crypto is that, you know, it moves pretty
fast, standards move pretty fast, and it's still sometimes difficult to keep up.
But personally, it's what I love because it's so improvement focused.
And so this as just being a start and then like, you know, everything that comes next,
I'm super excited for it.
So just going back to my first point, I think that it just echoes the right intent, for the
lack of a word, to say that, you know, this is a uniform standard that can be utilized by
any ecosystem inside Ethereum.
That personally excites me and echoes a lot of goodwill and makes it also easier for different
ecosystems to participate and say, hey, I want to contribute towards this.
And I think that that was the point that Joshua or Hart mentioned is that why is this, I
think, a big move is because it's focused on solving the solution where everyone can
participate.
Not necessarily it's good for one ecosystem, but it's good for everyone.
Hey, everybody.
I want to chime in with another point that's more on a sort of low level technical
angle from some of the other great points that have been brought up.
7683 is really hyper focused, which I think is another key strength.
It's targeting a demographic that I think is traditionally severely underrepresented in the standard space,
and that is fillers or solvers, right?
And there's this expectation among a lot of teams building intentful protocols.
I've fallen victim to this myself with Seaport is a very good example, where it's built from the ground up to support these intentful
methodologies and use patterns.
But if fillers don't have a really clean and consistent way to discover the universe of intents that can be processed
and a good interface to go and accomplish that, it just becomes pretty intractable.
And moreover, if you have a broad distributed group of potential fillers that can easily plug in and go,
that ultimately translates to better execution, better prices, better reliability, and more resistance to
downtime or censorship or all kinds of issues that could plague more concentrated
filler networks.
So 7683 is a fantastic step in that direction.
That's really not opinionated on settlement procedures or even the way that users are signing
and is primarily focused on, okay, how do we improve the process for participating
in these intent-based architectures as a filler and serving this really valuable need?
So, yeah, that's sort of my two cents on 7683 and why I think it's pretty cool.
One final comment just on exactly what you just said, ZeroAge.
I often tell people, you know, I was previously a market maker and one of the, like, something that genuinely shocks
every, like, crypto founder I talk to is their shock at the fact that market making profits are limited by
integration speed or integration time.
And so having something like an actually, you know, adopted universal standard for, you know, a type of order flow
that's coming in is one of those things that makes the speed of adoption, you know, an order of magnitude faster.
So I think you nailed it.
And, yeah, I hope, ZeroAge, you had a lot to do with 7683 because I'm a big Seaport fan.
So we've DMed a little bit about Seaport.
So God bless you.
God bless you.
And, yeah, thank you.
You know, I can't take too much credit because I just joined Uniswap, I think, two months ago now.
And so 7683 predates my time there.
But I was already thinking a lot about cross-chain swaps in the context of NFTs and immediately joined the conversation.
And there's some exciting stuff that's coming pretty quickly here that will involve 7683 to a great extent.
So I'm very excited about what it's enabling.
And you're absolutely right that market makers and fillers are so much more capable to hit the ground running when there's a clear, consistent standard for them to follow.
And good standards like this really help with that, get us to market a lot faster.
ZeroAge, don't be too humble.
Like, you offered a lot of feedback on kind of the second iteration of the standard that went up there, too.
So don't be too humble.
You've made a big contribution.
If we're considering the ZeroAge, like, I guess, fandom, you know, Hart.
Also, he wrote, like, the greatest smart contract ever, Seaport, just saying.
If you guys want to read what good solidity looks like, Seaport, thank you.
It's definitely a mixed bag in terms of opinions just based on the sheer amount of inline assembly.
But I will contend that it's a great educational resource, in part because there's also a corresponding set of reference contracts with no assembly.
So it's a nice kind of jump back and forth.
But I appreciate that.
And also, I think it's important to remind everybody that 7683 is still a living, breathing standard.
And while a lot of really talented people have been helping to shape it thus far, I think it's only getting started.
And there's still room for additional insight and review.
And that if there was ever a better time to get involved, it would be now.
Yeah.
So Hart or ZeroAge or anyone else that's contributed to this, once 7683 is finalized, what is going to be the potential impact to end users once all intent protocols start using this unified order ticket?
Good question, Zane.
Okay.
So ZeroAge made a good point that this is really meant to make it easy for fillers to find intents.
So what does that mean for developers is developers that want to write intentful or intent-based protocols can use this and have access to a filler network from day one.
So, like, very much like a public good here.
And I look at that as, like, a positive sum.
Frankly, the origins of this, even when Uniswap and across kind of got together, we're like, hey, we both want to do this intent-like thing.
We want the deepest filler or solver network possible.
So let's define a common standard so that we have this deep solver network.
But your question is, like, what should users expect?
I mean, in my opinion, what the intent architecture allows is really fast interop between two chains.
So you can just get assets or bridge plus do action between any two blockchains.
In my opinion, it is like a two-second experience.
It's going to be super fast.
The deeper the solver network is, the faster and more reliable and more consistent that two-second experience will be like for users.
And so, again, more 7683, there's sort of a positive flywheel here.
More solvers, more fillers.
Listening for 7683 means better user experience.
Faster fills means better user experience.
One point that Zero Age touched on that I think is really worth highlighting is the modular settlement system inside the standard.
So the standard specifies a settlement contract that should exist, but it doesn't say what that is or what that does.
And that settlement contract is where user assets are escrowed on the origin chain and where, like, quote-unquote, the intent is verified before funds are released back to the solver after they do the fill.
And what's so cool about making this be modular is we can seamlessly upgrade the standard with whatever the best way is to verify intents for that route.
So, Zane, you and I have talked about this, and this is part of our plan and part of where Optimism gets really excited with the super chain.
But if the user is going between two super chain contracts, chains, two super chain chains, you could imagine that there's a settlement system that uses a super chain native interop to allow for faster solver repayment.
And that'll just make it cheaper for the user.
It'll just be more efficient, more capital efficient there.
And you can alternatively imagine that if there's an intent going between two egg layer chains, it could use egg layer for verification of the intent and make that cheaper.
And so this modular settlement layer just means that this intent standard, that's 7683, is seamlessly upgradable to whatever the best technology is to verify intents.
And it'll just get cheaper and cheaper for users as time goes on.
One add-on that I think loops back to a point that we made earlier is if you're a filler, you need a good, consistent interface to discover these fill opportunities and act on them.
But you're not going to act on them unless you have a very clear picture of how you're going to eventually settle, right?
And because this is a really modular system that is future proofed and forward compatible with various different kinds of settlement layers, we're going to need additional standards as a component to all of this that are more specific to the fulfillment method.
Or at least very clear documentation and ways to make it easy for fillers to ramp up on a new settlement mechanic.
And I even think that there is a lot of room on the initiation layer as well.
Meaning if you think about a cross-chain swap, it's really three components, one of which is priming whatever is being offered on the origin chain, then that's got to settle and confirm.
And then you've got the trade that's happening on the destination chain.
And then finally, you've got the settlement back on either the origin chain or some combination of the two.
And the initiation layer is another area where I think there's a lot of good innovative standardization work.
And potential, especially if you have some form of a reusable resource lock, to actually take that two-second window of time and compress it way down.
Or put the burden on the filler to wait the couple seconds it takes to rebalance across chains.
But to settle effectively, instantly, or under the threshold of perceptibility for the swapper, for the end user.
All this to say, there's still a lot of work to be done.
And I'm thrilled to see so many bright minds on this space right now to help us all work it out.
Awesome.
Yeah.
And for anyone who's listened, I mean, we've talked about how much support the standard has garnered.
And one of the elements of this was that it is ready to use right now.
It's not theoretical.
And this was one of the initial criteria for putting this in place.
We're also big fans of modularity and the modular design philosophy.
And so it is really, really cool to see how you guys have put this into practice, thinking about the initiation of this order ticket.
That is the intent.
And then we have the middle piece where assets are locked, swapped, transferred, filled.
That's kind of all in the middle.
And then we have the settlement at the end.
And Hart, I want to double-click on one piece of what you said about the settlement layer.
And you mentioned ag layer.
And my understanding of the ag layer is that it is inherently this ZK aggregation settlement system.
And I think we've kind of heard a lot about potentially two competing paths of kind of future cross-chain interop,
where we have this ZK interop that is still kind of hand-waving and futuristic, but it exists.
And then the alternative is more of the intent-centric system for interop.
But from what I understand about 7683 and this modular settlement system,
intents can actually interplay with ag layer and ZK.
And so ZK and intents aren't mutually exclusive.
Is that the right way to think about this?
Yeah, 100%.
Ravi, there's like so much nuance to get into here, but let me try to like work through it point by point.
So first off, ag layer is not going to be ZK only.
They're doing really cool stuff here to do more, but that's like for the ag layer team to talk about,
and I'm not the expert on it.
Here's the high-level mental model.
You can use ZK to effectively send messages between chains in a very secure way.
That's great.
And if you think about what intent verification means,
so if I go back, what does this settlement layer do?
The settlement layer escrows user funds and keeps them safe until we know that the intent was filled,
and then it releases them to the solver.
So, okay, so we've got to like prove that the intent was filled.
If you can prove the intent was filled with ZK, great.
Like that works great.
And the path here is ZK is like super promising, but it's not super fast or super cheap today,
and probably won't be super, super fast or super, super cheap for a while.
So what you end up doing here is we can just use ZK to prove that the intent was filled
and release funds back to the solver, which just makes the intent cheaper and more capital efficient.
Does that make sense at kind of a very high level?
Absolutely.
Yeah, that does make sense.
We can use that ZK part at the end for that settlement piece to prove that it was filled on the destination chain,
and we can use the intent centric system to initiate this order ticket.
So, yeah, that makes perfect sense.
So just to rant on this for a second, right?
Like, okay, so let's like egg layer, as I kind of understand it,
it's going to be like 20 minutes or an hour in the early versions to send messages between chains.
Don't egg layer team, don't kill me if I got that wrong, but it's not seconds, right?
But if it's 20 minutes, that means now we can release solver funds back to the solver in 20 minutes,
which is pretty fast.
It's a pretty big improvement.
To give you guys sort of some order of magnitude numbers here,
because solvers have to be economically profitable to do this.
So if a solver were to make a loan for two hours and charge two basis points,
so very, very tiny number, but two basis point loan for two hours, that annualizes,
if you were to compound that continuously, that annualizes to like 180% return for the solver.
If that were to be not two minutes, or not two hours, but to be 10 times faster, for it to be 12 minutes,
then you could have the solver charge 0.2 basis points and still in theory make 180% annualized return
if they were to be able to continuously make those loans.
Now, no one can continuously make those loans.
It's like utilization is spiky, but it gives you a context of like, okay,
if we can repay the solver faster, intents get cheaper.
And then just to continue the rant here.
So we're like, okay, if we can use ZK to prove that an intent was filled, that's great.
If we can use other techniques too, it's like any messaging technique you want to adopt.
The Coinbase team is pushing, putting forward a kind of storage proof idea called RIP 7755,
which is another very cool idea of how to sort of trust in a trust minimized way to send messages across chains.
And that also would theoretically maybe let us send messages in 12 minutes, something like that.
So there's just a whole suite of technologies that are coming online that will make intents like stupidly cheap
because they'll let you verify that intent on a faster time basis.
Sorry for the rant.
And one follow-up there that I think is worth noting is if you have a really ironclad,
reputable source of escrow or way to credibly commit to a resource lock being available
after some window of time, even if that window of time is longer,
that now opens up possibilities for additional actors in the system.
If you have solvers or fillers that have really high preference for their cost of capital
and really are just trying to do atomic arbitrage and make as much sheer volume as they can,
then you have other entities that are not trying to compete on that metric,
but have capital that they're looking to earn a return on.
And if they're willing to wait for a ZK settlement to go through,
then now you have a really solid opportunity for innovation there
where you have differentiation of the different actors
and strong, credible commitments backing it.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
I mean, that kind of illustrates that.
There are greater possibilities here on multiple different pieces of this standard
where we can continue to innovate.
We can bring the cost of capital down.
We can kind of increase the efficiency overall of this system.
And these fillers and solvers can charge less fees.
And ultimately, that value is passed back to bridgers and swappers and users.
Joshua, you got your hand raised.
Yeah.
I think trying to speak from the perspective of an L2 in an ecosystem
where you have many competing types of structures like egg layer,
you have superchain, you have many, many different constructs.
And for an L2 to be in this construct,
I think where ERC-7683 is really unifying for us
is that it's a message standard
that can sit on all these different layers of interoperability.
Right.
So, of course, when it comes to visibility on the tooling,
I think SDRH mentioned that that will be key for fillers to actually identify,
oh, something is valuable,
some kind of available order is being made on the superchain side of things
or egg layer.
But at the end of the day, this creates this,
for an L2, it reduces our anxiety, right,
that we can't talk to each other
because we have a common messaging standard.
Then retroactively, like, you know,
my job is to look at architecture, right?
And, you know, whether we work with a shared sequencing situation
where we go ZK for interoperability,
like, we have less anxiety as an architectural profession
because of these standards that are offered at a contract level
that we can retroactively change over time.
So I think this is so necessary for us, right?
If you think about it, right,
this is almost like the separation of business operations
from infrastructure, right?
Like, this is critical, right?
It's almost like the separation of state from,
you know, back in the day, separation of state from religion.
This is like separation of business from infra,
which has always been the biggest criticism of our ecosystem.
Right?
Like, too much infra, too much infra, right?
We need use cases, right?
The only way we can achieve this
is we separate the use cases from the infra.
And I think this is one of those defining moments,
you know, looking forward.
Another thing I'd like to sort of add on this topic
is not only does a really good seamless cross-chain standard
for swaps, token transfers, all of that,
not only does it obviate a lot of the concerns
with operating in L2 and now having this divide to cross
in terms of the UX,
but I actually think that the North Star
for building a cross-chain swap standard
and popularizing the idea of cross-chain swaps
is that it can actually offer comparative benefits
over single-chain swaps.
There are certain components to being able to trade
in a single atomic environment
that are undeniably great, right?
Atomicity is a humongous benefit.
But we have abundant block space now.
It's a totally different paradigm.
And by utilizing either a domain
that has really good concentrated liquidity
or other properties that make it a desirable place to trade,
at least on one leg of a trade,
or properties about the blockchain that it's running on
that make it so you can redirect MEV
or just get faster settlement times.
I mean, there are a number of really compelling reasons
why you would want to opt for a cross-chain swap,
not just for the UX benefits,
but because it actually results in better execution
and a better experience beyond just feeling seamless
or being normie-friendly,
but that power users would opt for this.
I do...
Oh, sorry.
Sorry to interrupt you.
That's the point.
Okay, okay.
All I was going to say was,
while I do agree in theory,
I think there are some limitations
and or things that need to be ironed out
from the solver side of things
that I think have not been.
I think one thing that a lot of solvers
really have not invested enough time in thinking about
is, you know, bridging is one thing
where you're going from same asset
to same asset cross-chain,
you know, ETH to ETH, USDC to ETH,
USDC to ETH, USDC to ETH, USDC to ETH.
But you run into some things like,
you know, inventory risk
when you're doing cross-chain swaps, for example.
So if I'm going from, you know, USDC on Polygon
to ETH on optimism,
I run into this issue where
if I agree to fill that order at a certain price,
I then have to have access
to some kind of hedging market
to make sure that in the blockchain finality time
between both of these chains,
I need to be paying attention to things like
reorg risk, for example,
but I also need to be paying attention to,
for example, ETH's price in that time
and locking in some kind of a hedge.
And so while I agree in a super competitive solver market,
yes, you will get incredible execution cross-chain
that you really are,
it could be arguably better than same-chain.
From my point of view,
I think the solver market is still,
this might be a little bearish, I suppose,
but at least several years away
from being sophisticated enough
to have hedging capabilities
for things like cross-chain swaps.
I think that level,
you have to charge for really wide spreads
to make sure that they don't get their face ripped off
when they're doing quoting for that.
Sorry, go ahead.
I agree with you that price risk
and inventory risk are huge problems
and one that really need to be addressed,
especially in systems where you are forced
to just deliver a specific amount
of a specific token, right?
If you give a swapper a quote
and then you have to fill that quote
or fade it or not fill it, right?
That is absolutely a real challenge
and fillers become more like market makers
in those scenarios.
But I think just-in-time liquidity provision
against a chain that has really solid properties
that promote better execution
can still be a superior end experience
without a solver or filler
needing to take on any additional price risk,
particularly if they're able to do
just-in-time delivery of a stable coin.
For instance, you have pre-burned USDC
that Circle will mint on demand
on whatever chain you need it, right?
Now, if someone asks for,
they have token A
and they want to take token B,
especially if token A is a stable coin as well
on the source chain, the origin,
then you can just go and buy token B
with your instantly minted USDC
on the destination chain.
So these problems are tractable,
but I agree with you that there's work to be done.
But you run into the hedging issue.
Sorry, Hart, go ahead.
No, I was just going to jump in that like, look,
I think, and by the way, guys,
my Twitter space isn't showing me who's speaking,
so I'm kind of guessing names here.
So I think that was Zero Age that just spoke
and I think, was that you, Josh, before that?
That's correct, that's correct, yeah.
Sorry, I'm guessing names here, guys.
I apologize.
But, like, so what Across has done
in like our product today,
which, like, you know, was before 7683,
is we focused on same asset bridging
for the same reasons you mentioned, Josh.
Like doing cross-chain,
managing price risk is a harder problem
than not managing price risk.
So we focused on same asset bridging to start.
And my thinking is like, look,
like let's get the solver network really deep
for same asset bridging
and have a lot of order flow going there.
And then we were better positioned to,
quote-unquote, like upgrade them
to actually managing price risk.
And I don't know how long that'll take,
to be honest.
But I think what,
I just look at it as like incentives.
So if there is a lot of order flow,
then it'll happen quickly.
If there's no order flow,
it'll happen very slowly.
And so the easiest way for us
to get the order flow
is to start by building the solver network
for same asset bridging
and then kind of go from there.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, no, no, no.
You're dead on.
I think of,
I think the starting with bridging point of view
is like really, really smart
and then allowing cross-chain swapping later
because across is clearly built
for both same chain asset swapping,
or sorry, bridging
and cross-chain asset swapping.
I think when I,
when I think about like the best example
of, you know,
a platform that ran into this exact problem
and still is really suffering from it,
I think of Xerox actually.
Xerox has this problem
for their order book off-chain
where they're basically saying,
so when you make a maker order
on their platform,
you're locked into your maker order
for 30 seconds.
And that's the very,
I mean, it's very, very valid
why they did that.
They did that to make sure
that you couldn't, you know,
pull your liquidity out of your wallet
after you made that order
and rug the user
whenever you actually fill it.
And then let's say the price moves against you,
you just cancel your quote
without, without wanting to know
and the transaction reverts.
So it's a problem that like
needs to be solved through,
you know, basically competition.
And so I think it's one of those things
where it's going to take,
I really like,
a thing we're really focused on at Aiori
is making,
making being a cross-chain market maker
something that has,
it gets orders of magnitude easier
and much, much, much faster.
So yeah, dead on.
I think you're, you're right.
You're right there.
Hey, I got a hot ball.
It was a pleasure chatting.
Likewise, ZeroH.
Thanks, man.
Bye.
And maybe it's worth just walking through
or stepping through the risks,
like the risks that solvers face here.
So there's reorg risk of like,
will, does the solver fill a user
before finality on the origin chain?
And that's kind of,
can be priced statistically.
If there is a,
if, if they're swapping between assets,
there's price risk.
So are they like,
do they have to hedge that price risk
while things are in flight
and or just after the trade is filled?
They've, you know,
bought asset A,
sold asset B,
they need to hedge that.
But there's inventory risk,
like you all talked about,
where I have,
the solver now needs to manage inventory
across these chains.
And then this isn't exactly risk,
but then there's the kind of cost of capital
of how long they may extend a loan for here.
Um, and the way I look at it is like,
I think solvers today
are actually managing reorg risk pretty well.
Uh, and they, they,
they are doing the,
as blockchains get more reorg resistant,
or as Zero H talked about,
like these resource lock concepts,
there's ways that that reorg risk
goes down and down,
which is cool.
Um, in terms of the inventory risk,
uh, as we get more and more technologies
that are, uh,
that let you rebalance inventory
at like a 20 minute basis
that makes inventory management
easier for solvers too.
So for example, Circle CCTP,
which lets you mint and burn USDC
on like a 20,
12 to 20 minute type basis
is great for solvers
because they can do fast fills of USDC
and then rebalance using CCTP
every 20 minutes or so.
Uh, and then of course,
like I talked about
the settlement contract thing,
as new technologies come online
to quote unquote,
verify intents,
we can pay back solvers faster,
which reduces their cost of capital.
Uh, and then Josh,
the final bit is yeah,
like price risk is like
that just gets more sophisticated
over time.
So I kind of look at
all the risks that solvers face.
They're real,
uh, but the direction
is just kind of all in the way
that the tailwinds
are just reducing all of these risks,
uh, progressively over time,
which gets me excited.
Yeah.
Yep.
Um, and, and I think that,
that is like part of the,
the forward looking nature
of this, of this standard.
Um, yeah,
I think Joshua from mantle
has, uh, has his hand up again.
Josh.
Yeah, I, I just want to second
what was said, right?
So I think, you know,
if you think about like,
even on the architecture level,
right, like our decisions
to go towards any of these
interoperability chains,
it's to reduce those trust
assumptions and reduce
that risk.
Uh, you know,
you laid a couple of different
kinds of risks,
but like, for example,
or if, if something like
aglier interoperability
between chains,
or, you know,
effectively,
it's like a pre-confirmation
between, uh, you know,
fast lanes between two ecosystems,
uh, that if anything goes wrong,
it rolls back, uh, equivalent,
right?
So you, it's almost atomic,
uh, in certain lanes.
Then the risk on those lanes
become like, you know,
goes, goes to,
uh, specifically risk on,
um, uh, uh, like, uh,
on, on, risk, risk on,
on, on reconciliation,
uh, it goes to zero, right?
In some of these cases,
uh, and that creates incentives
for us, right?
Like it creates a tangible
financial product market fit
incentive for an architecture,
uh, L2 architecture to move
in those directions
into the places that make sense.
So it, you can think of it
like intents are going to shape
the way architecture designs
are going to be made, right?
Because they create the use case
for us and the business case
rather than the narrative,
uh, because we can tangentially
see the, the cost of capital.
We can measure it.
We can, we can understand
the, the cost of capital.
We can understand the,
the, the real risk
and its eventual cost on intents.
Uh, so then we can start
measuring these things
and prioritize accordingly.
So it's, it's, it's actually
very, very good.
Like when you have,
when you have the data for this.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, it's in like
in the real world,
it's the same thing.
So, uh, I, I've been
from a traditional finance
background.
So like, um,
one of the transformations
in the industry
was obviously,
I know this,
everyone uses Revolue and Wise,
right?
If you think of them,
they're actually
thread five filler,
filler networks,
uh, because what they do
is like, uh, you know,
you send a cross-border
fund transfer, right?
But what they did is
they, they set up like
local banks.
Let's say your,
your payment lane
between US and UK,
right?
They just set up
a local bank
on both sides
and then they fill
accordingly, right?
Like, and then they just
figure out what's the net
to, to then send
a cross-border fund transfer.
And then they,
and then over time,
like they,
they became the,
the people that can
risk manage, uh,
these positions.
And they found value
in actually,
you know,
making the network
transactions, uh,
shorter.
And, and actually,
even in industry,
they are the,
they're the most
likelihood people
to adopt, um,
a blockchain
for cross-border
settlements
because of the fast,
uh, settlement times.
Uh, and it's
super incentivized
because of this thing
called pre-funding cost,
uh, which is kind of
like what you say,
cost of capital,
like idle capital
sitting there
so as to fund
each of these
local, local accounts.
So like, uh,
you know,
I just, just
train,
train that analogy
out, like the,
the, the,
the use case,
uh, uh,
creates data
which then gives us
the justification
for more improvements
to the infra
rather than improving
the infra
hoping that the use
case will come,
right?
Like it's very
reverse cycle.
Like, you know,
uh, you know,
if, if you see the use
case and then we
move the infra,
it's almost like,
uh, you know,
it's, it's a low
hanging fruit
rather than the opposite.
Hey, I got to jump,
guys.
It was a pleasure.
Thanks so much,
everybody.
Thanks, Joshua.
Uh, Zane,
I saw you had your
hand up.
Did you want to
jump in here?
Yeah, I, I just
building off of
Joshua's analogy.
I think the big
difference with 7683
and intense systems
though is this
system is just
going to get more
performant as the
way to verify
messages becomes
more performant,
right?
Um, so as
solvers have more
ways to become
more efficient
and, um, improve
inventory rebalancing,
get their, uh,
capital back faster,
the price for
users to go
cross chain
is just going
to drop
further.
The speed at
which these
intents are going
to get fulfilled
is going to get
faster.
And, um, to me,
that's like one of
the most exciting
pieces around this
entire, um,
intent-based
architecture.
Absolutely.
Uh, yep.
Adam.
Hey, all.
Um, yeah, I really
enjoyed the discussion
so far.
Uh, so I just
kind of wanted to
pose a question to
the group, uh,
looking a bit
forward.
Um, you know, I
think we've, we've
talked a lot about,
um, how creating
these, these filler
networks will like
result in, uh, you
know, that are, uh,
time, uh, like
faster execution time,
better, like, price
execution for the
users, uh, but
generally all within
this, this model of,
um, transferring
tokens and swapping
tokens.
I think that, I think
that makes sense
given sort of where a
lot of user focus
and attention is
today.
Um, but I was
kind of curious on
like, where do you,
where do you all
think, uh, this sort
of intent
architecture, specifically
cross-chain
intents can be used,
uh, to speed up
actions that go sort
of beyond that.
And specifically
looking at, like,
account abstraction,
we've seen, um, you
know, some, some
different ways that
like cross-chain can
like improve the
experience.
I think we, we've
seen, uh, resource
locks that are built
into the accounts
themselves, uh, as
to use as like the
credible commitment
source, uh, but
also on like the
user facing side, uh,
the key store roll-ups
where your account
states, your settings
sort of the, your
home base, uh, exists
on like one chain and
is then propagated
across lots of
different chains.
Is there any other
setting outside of, um,
uh, token transfers
and token swaps
that you think
intent, uh, protocols
in like seven, six,
eight, three can
speed up user
interactions?
And if so, kind of
curious what you all
speculate that is.
I mean, Adam, I
love this question.
I feel like it's a
leading question, which
I love, uh, a lot,
a lot.
Um, and I think,
you know, this
wasn't, I think you
and I talked what in
June or something like
that.
I'd listened to one of
your podcasts around
account abstraction.
Um, and then we, we,
we chatted after that,
but account abstraction
plus intense is to
me, uh, kind of like
the Holy grail of
where we're ending
So, uh, what do I
mean by that?
Uh, let's, let's
pretend we have a
home chain.
Um, I'll call it
base, not cause I'm
kind of it just cause
it's home base, right?
We'll say base is my
home chain.
I keep my assets there
and I want to do
actions on some
other chain, um,
where I have no
money, right?
Uh, you can imagine
that I sign an account
abstraction message on
that other chain for
whatever I want, um,
any kind of
permission to action.
And that account
abstraction message is
then the payload of an
intent, um, including
like a seven, six,
eight, three intent.
So what I then do is I
then send a seven, eight,
six, eight, seven,
six, eight, seven, six,
eight, three intent from
my home chain where I
include the payload of
what I want to do on
the remote chain and I
pay for it from my home
chain and like, boom,
it, it executes and I
can do whatever I want
on that other chain.
Does like, this is
something I'd love to
talk to you more about,
but like, does that
make sense to you?
Yeah, that makes sense.
I guess the, uh, the
exciting part here though
is that like, uh, you
know, typically the, the
way that workflow would be
is that like, you'd have
to either go through, uh,
um, you know, all the
way back to L one or
through some sort of
like chain, uh, you know,
native thing, be it like,
uh, super chain interrupt or
ag layer, um, in order to
have that, like, you know,
direct like authorization
types of guarantees of
like, who was the center of
this, you know, on the,
what was the source chain,
those types of information.
But with intense, there's a
way to, uh, basically speed
up that verification process.
Right.
And then potentially like
bundle other things in
that payload.
Um, so yeah, I think that's
the general direction of
things I'm excited about
here.
And, uh, it's maybe a
little bit like, you know,
simpler or like easier on
the solver side, but I think
it can lead to some like
really interesting and, and
really like sort of seamless
experiences for users.
Yeah.
Um, yeah, no, I, this is
something that like, this is
where a Twitter space is less
ideal.
We need like, uh, like a
whiteboard and draw some,
draw some user flows here.
Uh, but I, I really do
think that, uh, like, again,
if once I have widely
available, uh, account
abstraction, uh, the, I
can, in that world, the user
can sign messages to do
anything on any chain and
they just need to get paid
for by somebody.
And so effectively what we
can then say is, okay, let's
pay for those messages.
Let's pay for them being
executed.
Um, and maybe I'm butchering
concepts here a little bit,
but let's pay for them to be
executed by the solver
network, by this intent
based solver network.
Uh, and I'm paying that
intent based solver network
that's going to execute this
account abstraction message.
I'm paying for it from my
home chain where I have
funds that I'm using, that
I'm, that I'm, I'm, I'm
that, that I'm putting in
that intent that I'm paying
for via that intent.
Um, and so I think this is
like a concept that is going
to get a lot of traction, uh,
as we head into the Petra
hard fork and like 7702, uh,
sort of sets the stage for
there being widely available,
uh, account abstraction across
all accounts everywhere.
Uh, I think this could be a
very big and growing concept.
And I think it's something that
I, I like, I'm super bullish on
this concept of take intense,
intense plus account
abstraction equals unified
Ethereum chain abstraction,
best user experience possible.
I need to drop, but on that
note, um, the same way that we
have a bundler player to see
some great visualizations and
usage of, uh, account
abstraction, we need a 7683
scan, you know, seeing all
those, uh, orders come in.
Yes, sir.
All right.
Thanks, Phil.
Bye.
Thanks Zane.
Yeah.
I think, uh, visuals do go a
long way.
So I'll just kind of second
Zane's point there where it
was some kind of dashboard
showing order flow.
And I've even seen order flow
dot art.
I think it is from maybe the
flashbots guy that, that do a
similar thing in the MEV space,
uh, which, uh, which is a
pretty cool visual there.
Um, maybe just one more
technical question and
appreciate everyone sticking
around because I think we are
at the hour, uh, but we've
got a lot of smart people in
here, so I think we'll, we'll
keep it rolling for a bit.
Um, so one more technical
question.
I kind of came into this with
two counter arguments, I
guess you could say, uh, to
intense.
The first one was ZK
interop, which, you know,
intense after kind of going
through the space interplay
quite nicely, uh, as ZK can
prove that an intent is
filled.
Um, the other, uh, the other
one that I have written down
here is kind of this async
versus sync.
Uh, I don't even know what
to call it, but like
dichotomy or, or bifurcation
in, in the interop space.
Um, and so I have a feeling
that, you know, intense are
actually quite, quite, uh,
close to and can, uh, work
with and are compatible with
kind of the synchronous
composability.
But in general, we've seen,
you know, all these rollups,
this liquidity fragmentation,
uh, lead to this idea of, of
almost like this parasitic
relationship between L2s and
Ethereum.
And then also like L2s as kind
of competitive with one
another.
And, you know, we've heard
kind of the idea and the
vision is to bring this,
this, uh, Ethereum ecosystem
together using, uh, better
interop and, and one of
which, uh, is synchronous
composability on this space.
I think it was zero age that
mentioned this 7683 standard
gets us to atomicity, but I'm
also hearing that, you know,
between locking and then
ultimately settling these
intent tickets, there's a lot
of things that happen in the
middle, uh, solver risk part.
You sounded off on quite a few
of those, those things that
happen in the middle, uh,
reorg risk, solver inventory,
et cetera.
And so it sounds to me like we
aren't quite at atomicity.
We aren't quite at the
synchronous composability level
that we would get, uh, which
would, you know, kind of get
everything in sync and eliminate
some of those, uh, intra
transaction risks.
How are you guys thinking
about synchronous composability
via something like a shared
sequencer and how that could
work with this 7683 system of
intense?
Can I, Robbie, to give a
little like definition, a
little bit of like semantics
here, um, intent.
So atomicity in a blockchain,
uh, means like this
transaction will only get
executed or this set of
transactions have to all
succeed or they all roll back.
Right.
Um, intents aren't atomic that
way, but they can kind of
emulate it from a user's
perspective because basically
what you say is, uh, solver,
you will not get this money,
uh, unless you do this thing.
Right.
So it's, it's like a related
concept.
It's almost like it's
emulating atomicity, but it's
not the same thing.
We're saying solver, you have
to fill this intent under the
standard or you won't get the
money.
So either you do it, uh, or
you don't get the money.
Does that kind of make sense to
you?
Yeah, it does.
And, and I guess the way that
I've kind of heard about this in
the past is there's a
progression.
Synchronous composability is kind of
at the end of this spectrum, but
in kind of intermediate, like
getting on onto that, we have
kind of the different levels to
Um, I forget the exact
terminology, but it is like you
said, we have this, uh, like
execution or like atomic
execution, atomic.
And I think there's like, it
goes atomic inclusion, atomic
execution, and then full atomic
composability.
Yep.
Yep.
Okay.
And so kind of using that
framework and kind of the
progression towards full atomic
composability, where do you
intents lie on that, on that
progression?
And is this something that we can
work into full atomic
composability?
Uh, it's, it's, these are like
they're related, but distinct
concepts because intents are kind of
more of a financial concept here,
like, uh, versus, uh, the, uh, the
sort of atomic composability or
synchronous composability is not a
financial concept.
It's just literally like these
things all have to happen or none
of them happen.
Um, and the intents is all, it's
all based on like economics.
Like you're only going to get paid
back, uh, if this thing happens,
but like to your point, I think what
you're kind of getting at Robbie is
like, um, intense, I think can make
the cross-chain experience feel like
it's atomic for a user for many use
cases, but not all.
Um, I think that synchronous
composability between some blockchains
could be a pretty magical and useful
thing, but, uh, I don't think it's
going to happen across every
blockchain.
I think like just can't shared
sequence everything all at once.
And so I think that they're kind of
complimentary concepts.
Um, but I, I don't personally have
like a super strong view of how they
play out, uh, outside of like, if
there are chains that have, uh, atomic
execution or atomic inclusion, they
could also settle in tents faster.
Um, but I, I think of them as yeah,
parallel, like complimentary, but
distinct concepts.
Yeah.
Got it.
Okay.
Um, yeah, I'm gonna, I'm gonna think
a bit more about, uh, about this.
Um, probably do some more research
here too, but Adam, you know, and,
and Joshua, you guys are also on the
space.
Appreciate you sticking around,
Joshua.
You also mentioned kind of the shared
sequencer, like paradigm a little bit
earlier in the space as well.
You know, do you have any thoughts on
kind of this, this, uh, you know, how
is mantle or some of these L2s thinking
about, uh, you know, some of these
standards that, that you guys adopt and
when you're looking at, um, giving the
best interop and cross-chain interop
experience to your users, what are some
of the things that go through your mind?
What is the progression to ultimately
deliver the best user experience?
Yeah, that's a great question.
So I, I, well, first off the question
around shared sequences or, or like, uh,
you know, these, um, shared, um, I, I
will, I will define them as like shared
pre-confirmation layers, um, whether ZK
or not, because they, they effectively are
able to then deliver better user experience
between two chains with the assumptions
that, uh, you know, these either work or not.
So the atomicity of those transactions and
in the, in the short term is, it's just
like almost certainly just going to be
like ERC twenties, whether they bridge or
not, uh, those, those situations, uh, as the
current scope, the shared sequences, uh, or, um, I
think in contrast to maybe the ZK approach, um,
will have, will have almost like oligopolistic
limitations because, uh, shared sequences
require the need to run multiple, like
multiple instances of other sequences, uh,
you know, whether it's like a, it's like a
more like a version of them, they, they, they
will then reach result in some kind of a
capacity constraint. Uh, so I, I think that's
where I, I find that, uh, it, it, it is, it
is by definition, like it is, it's also
another question of how do you feel the
future of, uh, Ethereum's rollup, uh,
ecosystem. Do you see it as one that's
primarily oligopolistic or do you see one
that you, you would, you would envision a
world of, of many, many new innovations and
new rollups into the future? Um, and I think if,
if you, if you feel there will be a tail end
of rollups in the future, they, they will
not, um, it will not be scalable under like
a fundamental shared sequence of model, but
shared sequence of model will have this better
UX for, uh, these, I think, as you say,
something like a cross chain atomic, uh,
assurances at a very fast pre-confirmation. So I
think it's like the trade-off of like what
you fundamentally believe, uh, philosophically
of the future of Ethereum, one where it's
more oligopolistic or one that is, uh,
wide reaching and wide bounding. Uh, I, I, I
think for us, we support this standard
because it's like, it's, it's, it's one
that we anticipate that can catch, capture
the, the tail end as much as possible. What
we're looking for ways to also be part of
one of these, um, interop, uh, uh, as I
said, like a fast pre-confirmation, uh, uh,
layers on the L2. So it's, it's not a
mutually exclusive idea. It's just that
with more connectivity, different kinds of
user experiences, uh, and even the front end
tooling that we mentioned earlier, like, uh,
construction and new ways of doing that. Uh,
and even future, uh, models of, of even
like better UX, like, you know, traditional,
uh, tasky signing on wallets, all these
combined together would just give us more
options to go down, uh, the routes, uh,
that are necessary for our users. I suspect
this is, this is my prediction. I think
this is, um, I will not say it's a bit
disappointing when I say a prediction, but I
suspect where who wins, uh, in the short
term is almost entirely dependent on how
deep the liquidity will be on, uh, on, on,
on these two and in the short term seemingly
competing, uh, solutions, uh, in the long
term, technically they do not compete, uh,
and, uh, and, and in the long term, it will
almost depend on, uh, yeah, where, where
pricing is cheaper and, and when the, the
trade-off between, uh, how things, like, how
this, uh, you know, a fast pre-confirmation,
fast UX, the trade-off between that or even
deeper liquidity, uh, these are two
questions that, uh, I think in the, in the
long term will, will likely be more and more
problematic.
Just to, Joshua, I think there's some parts
in here that are really well said, and I think
we got to wrap this up, but I just to make a
quick comment, um, to the shared sequencer
thing, you can almost think to, again, I wish we
had visuals here, but it's like, there's going
to be different gardens, like different little
communities within Ethereum.
Like, Superchain is one community, Aglier is one
community, this set of shared sequencers is one
community, that set of shared sequencers is one
community.
To think that there's just going to be one
thing that is kind of, like, connecting all the
chains at a very, very high speed level is
unrealistic.
So, I look at this intent architecture and the
7683 standard as really, like, this thin layer of
abstraction that connects all of these islands, uh,
together, and it doesn't mean that the islands
themselves can't have their own really fast in or
out between them, but you have this other intense
standard to connect all the islands to really make
it feel like one, you know, unified Ethereum.
Oh, yeah, very well said.
I, I think that does put it, put into perspective
and kind of gives a, uh, mental model, uh, of how
to think about this.
And we've kind of, you know, heard, heard this
island analogy and this roll-up cluster, uh, framework
in the past.
And so, yeah, I think, you know, as a believer in the
modular design philosophy, we're, as the Ethereum
universe continues to expand, you know, we are going
to continue to get more and more modular, more chains.
Um, and, and it's, you know, pretty futile to think that
these chains are all going to converge to one shared
sequencer.
Um, I, I think, you know, Joshua and your oligopoly, uh,
analogy, I think that is a really, really great framing.
And, and that kind of fits into this, this roll-up cluster
island framework as well.
And then ultimately something like 7683 is able to connect
all of these clusters together and still has tons of value
in that, in that paradigm.
So awesome.
I appreciate you guys kind of working through that.
Um, I think that's a great place to, uh, to kind of close
up here, maybe one, you know, one, uh, closing thought
as we kind of pass it around, um, something lighthearted,
you know, more fun is, but, you know, what are you guys
looking forward to most, uh, at DevCon and, uh, and then
any closing thoughts on the, on the conversation we had
today?
Do you want to call?
Yeah.
Let's take a second.
Yeah.
Uh, yeah, I do my, I, I, I, yeah.
So I think, uh, looking into it, um, the area around
pre-confirmation is probably the, the topic of the, of, of the
quarter, I would say, um, it, it has many aspects, right?
That's the L1 side of things for pre-confirmations.
That's the L2 side of things.
Uh, yeah.
Unichain, uh, yeah.
Uniswap has definitely been, been a big part of this.
Um, yeah.
Flashbots.
Um, yeah, many, many aspects of this, this approach
of pre-confirmation is going to be very interesting.
And, um, of course, the second thing that I'm focused on, uh, from my, you
know, background in TreadFi is like, you know, ever since the election, everything
looks more and more like a blue market.
So the funding rates is a big topic, I would say.
Uh, so definitely everything on the DeFi side of things, you know, um, looking
into use cases that previously, I think previously when I was on, on the rollup, I
talked a lot about how things might look different in, in a, in a bull market scenario
where, you know, gas will compete with, uh, MEV and gas, uh, like basic transactions
are competing with MEV, um, uh, and funding rates are going to go up and all, all these
transitions, uh, we are reliving it right now.
So it's, it's good to be good.
Uh, it, it actually, uh, it goes like in, in a, in a more bull market, highly speculative
market, like different use cases might show themselves differently.
So this is going to be a very interesting DEF CON to be discussing these things.
I guess, uh, I can go next.
Um, yeah.
My highlight from the conversation was, I think just talking about how the standardization
from seven, six, eight, three is going to make it easier, uh, for new fillers, for new solvers
to get set up and to integrate, uh, you know, different types of underlying either, uh, roll-up
technology or other sort of, uh, inter-op technology.
Um, and yeah, the ultimate result here is faster execution and better prices and, uh, for the
end users.
So yeah, excited to get all those things kicked off.
Um, I guess, okay.
Oh, small shell, uh, for me.
So, um, for anyone going to DEF CON, um, on the 13th, on the Wednesday, um, I'm, I'm moderating
a panel, uh, with Vitalik, uh, and the heads of, uh, Art from Optimism and Base.
So, um, Ben Jones and Steven, um, and, uh, Jesse Pollock, um, about, uh, unifying Ethereum
and specifically kind of like this type of conversation.
How do we make these different L2 ecosystems talk to each other?
Um, how do we make Ethereum feel like one network?
Um, that's at 1.30, uh, Bangkok time on, uh, Wednesday the 13th.
So anyone there, I'd love to have you join.
Um, and after, right after that talk, I'm doing, uh, I'm doing a talk on the same stage
about 7683 and intense.
So that's my small shell.
Um, there's going to be, um, a lot to talk about there.
And I'm really excited to just push this narrative of how we unify Ethereum.
Uh, my goal, honestly, and this isn't just for me and for across, but this is for Ethereum
as a whole.
I do hope that coming out of DevCon, um, the Ethereum community kind of does realize that
unification, making, making Ethereum feel like one network should be a top, top priority.
Uh, just like scalability was three years ago, uh, ETH solved the scalability problem with
the roll-up centric, uh, roadmap.
Um, and we actually did a really good job and that should be celebrated.
Uh, I really want to see everybody work together, uh, to solve the, the kind of unification
problem.
Uh, and that's what I'm super stoked about.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Same.
I think for DevCon, uh, a lot of people will be on the mind of the mindset of like, uh,
building with the community, the community first.
Um, and I think the shift in the, in the kind of incentives, as well as like the way that
teams are thinking about how to build these interrupt systems towards standards and more
of a community first and better for the broader Ethereum ecosystem, rather than like, you know,
insert my interrupts stack here, I think is going to keep happening.
And so there's the interrupt hub, I believe happening in Bangkok, which, which should be
cool.
I think optimism is putting some stuff together as well.
Um, they're doing that together, Andy, just actually to show that on the 16th, on the
Saturday following DevCon, uh, the EF, uh, with, with optimism and others, it's not like
an optimism thing, but they're doing this interrupt hub on the 16th, which I think should be pretty
cool.
Yeah, I think that'd be great.
Um, but yeah, that shift in mindset and the broader, uh, kind of getting people together
in the same room to, to kind of like build that, that again, I think is going to be very
productive from the lens of like the typical panels and kind of like keynotes and conferences
from a, uh, commercial perspective.
I think the one thing that I'm looking forward to the most from DevCon is more of these like
intimate, productive conversations, uh, irregardless of kind of like individual incentives or, uh,
motives and broader kind of Ethereum growth.
So aligned with you guys there and thank you for coming out.
I was quite quiet today.
I learned quite a bit.
So, uh, thank you for all the great takes.
And, um, I, I'm, I'm glad that, that the roll up is able to provide a kind of open and
a, uh, a place for discourse and conversation and push Ethereum forward as well.
So thanks guys.
I mean, Andy, the roll up is a unifying Ethereum here.
So like, well done to, to you and Robbie.
Thank you, sir.
That's the goal.
Congrats guys on the growth of the, of the, of the, of the 7, 6, 8, 3 standard.
Looking forward to, uh, contributing more and see you guys in Bangkok.
Let's go.
Thank you guys.
Thanks all.
Thanks y'all.
Thanks.
Thanks.
